>Can the tribes call up the police to have them enforce treaty rights that the oil companies are infringing?

Police aren't supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner. A protester trespassing on pipeline company's property is a fairly cut and dry case that the police can act on it. Some treaty dispute between the tribe and the pipeline company is vague enough that they'll need a court ruling before they can act. If the tribes can get a court ruling, they can definitely call up the police to enforce those treaty rights.

>> Yes, that's how police works.

>Yes, that's the problem.

I'm baffled by this. You think that being able to call up a police to report a disturbance/crime, is a problem?

Funny how the pipeline company's "property" is cut and dry, but a 200 year-old treaty guaranteeing access to that land isn't recognized, is't it?

The problem with the police that I'm talking about here is that they readily apply violence to suppress protest on behalf of corporate interests, when the legal situation is actually far more complex.

If it's just so simple as "the pipeline companies meet with the police every day," do tribal leaders get the same courtesy?

> Funny how the pipeline company's "property" is cut and dry, but a 200 year-old treaty guaranteeing access to that land isn't recognized, is't it?

No.

I'm also not surprised that the anti-pipeline activists presented talking points that sound vaguely compelling and garner maximum sympathy from an average layperson.

>The problem with the police that I'm talking about here is that they readily apply violence to suppress protest on behalf of corporate interests, when the legal situation is actually far more complex.

I agree it's complex, but just because it's complex, doesn't mean that the pipeline is in a legal limbo zone where nobody owns it and everyone can do what they want. I suspect that's happening is that legally speaking, the pipeline company has gotten the necessary permits/approvals/decisions that they can start construction and evict trespassers. There might still be additional appeals on top, but they're not convincing enough for a judge to grant an injunction. You might disagree with this, and say that the justice system should be more obstructionist, but that's more of a problem with the judicial system than the police, and has nothing to do with this article's accusation that the police are being bribed or whatever.